Testaments and Covenants

[Claire]

I've begun reading the Book of Mormon, and I got about as far as the cover page before I encountered my first issue

 

Okay, so the Book of Mormon often gets subtitled as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." There are two definitions which you can use for testament. One would be similar to how we use testimony (i.e. confess of or witnessing to something), and I sense that is the context in which Mormons are using it. That being said, it also seems to be an allusion to the bible's old and new testaments, which use the alternate definition for testament. in the case of the biblical divisions, the word testament would be synonymous with the word "covenant." In other words, they are referring to the "old covenant" and the "new covenant."

 

I guess what I'm asking then is if the Book of Mormon is claiming to be another witness to Christ, or is it about a covenant separate and apart from those established in the bible?

 

Thanks for any clarification you can provide! :)

 

-Claire

[Guest]

It is another Testament - Witness.  Not another covenant.

 

P.S.  I see you're Catholic.  I assume Roman.  I grew up in the RCC so maybe I can help you with other questions you have between Catholic and LDS...

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

The Book of Mormon is another Witness...

 

They lived under the law of Moses... and then Under Christ when he came.  (Old and New Testament Covenant Sense)

 

The LDS Church claims to be a restoration of New Testament Covenant Church... so we do understand it both ways

[Just_A_Guy]

While Mormon teaching doesn't really delve into the idea of the Book of Mormon as a testament in the sense of being a covenant, the notion does have support in our scripture in the form of Doctrine and Covenants 84:57:

 

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Edited January 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the ancient covenants, it makes perfect sense to refer to the Book of Mormon, which ushered in that restoration and is in fact the primary written witness of it, as another covenant.

[Guest]

While Mormon teaching doesn't really delve into the idea of the Book of Mormon as a testament in the sense of being a covenant, the notion does have support in our scripture in the form of Doctrine and Covenants 84:57:

 

 

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the ancient covenants, it makes perfect sense to refer to the Book of Mormon, which ushered in that restoration and is in fact the primary written witness of it, as another covenant.

 

Okay, don't confuse the issue now.... That verse does not refer to the Book of Mormon as a Covenant different from Christ's covenant (new and everlasting covenant).  Of course, it is a covenant - as all covenant people including the people in the BOM are under - but it is not "another" Covenant as the OP has asked (that she referred to as old covenant, new covenant, and possibly another covenant referred to by another testament).

 

A restoration of the Covenant does not another covenant make...

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

It is wordplay at this point.

 

The LDS church accepts the meaning of Testament as both Witness and Covenant

 

The Book of Mormon is a Witness of a Covenant People

 

To the OP it will be Another Witness of a Covenant People.  One that will be new to her even if the Covenant is not new

[Guest]

It is wordplay at this point.

 

The LDS church accepts the meaning of Testament as both Witness and Covenant

 

The Book of Mormon is a Witness of a Covenant People

 

To the OP it will be Another Witness of a Covenant People.  One that will be new to her even if the Covenant is not new

 

Okay, there is a VERY DIFFERENT connotation between a NEW covenant and ANOTHER Covenant... especially for a Catholic not familiar to the concept of the Restoration so we need to be careful not to confuse the OP here.

 

The OP is asking if this is ANOTHER Covenant.  It is not.  It is still the New and Everlasting Covenant of the Holy Bible.  But... it is ANOTHER Testament (Witness) of Christ.

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

Okay, there is a VERY DIFFERENT connotation between a NEW covenant and ANOTHER Covenant... especially for a Catholic not familiar to the concept of the Restoration so we need to be careful not to confuse the OP here.

 

The OP is asking if this is ANOTHER Covenant.  It is not.  It is still the New and Everlasting Covenant of the Holy Bible.  But... it is ANOTHER Testament (Witness) of Christ.

 

 

Possibly... I have never claimed to know anything about the Catholic mind-set...  But the OP is here asking for the LDS mind-set which I do know something about.   She can ask further questions if she needs them rather then limiting the people answering to only former Catholics

[Claire]

Okay, there is a VERY DIFFERENT connotation between a NEW covenant and ANOTHER Covenant... especially for a Catholic not familiar to the concept of the Restoration so we need to be careful not to confuse the OP here.

 

Too late! Brain melting!

 

Okay, so I've been trying to figure out the Doctrine and Covenants quote above, and its melting my brain a bit. From what I can tell reading the whole section and its accompanying commentary, it seems like the quoted section is meant to be an admonishment for either the church as a whole or specifically the elders there present (it's not entirely clear to me which).

 

Anyway, I think it's supposed to be God talking through Joseph Smith, and not just Joseph Smith. As such, the "new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them" seems like it could mean one of two things:

 

1. The Book of Mormon and the other "former commandments" are parts of a new covenant established since the restoration.

2. The new covenant is the new covenant established in the new testament, with the Book of Mormon and the "former commandments" testifying to it.

 

Does anybody know of any official LDS teachings on this subject, either in scriptures or from some other authoritative source. I feel like I'm getting somewhat conflicting answers, and would like to get as "official" an answer as possible :)

[Jane_Doe]

Ok, I’m going to take a step back here for clarity.

 

The original question:

 

One would be similar to how we use testimony (i.e. confess of or witnessing to something), and I sense that is the context in which Mormons are using it.

 

Your assessment is correct here Claire.  If all you wanted was that answer I would stop reading now.

 

To set one record straight: the people in the BoM lived under the Law of Moses until Christ came, and then they lived under the higher law.

[estradling75]

LDS.Org is generally considered authoritative.

 

A few links from the Scriptural Study helps on Coventants

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/covenant.t1?lang=eng&letter=c

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/new-and-everlasting-covenant.t1?lang=eng&letter=n

[Jane_Doe]

Now, to speak on the difference/similarities between convents and testaments in the LDS understanding:

 

Covenant = your promises

Testaments = your witness.

 

When I sat down to write this, I was thinking how they were separate things, but as I reflect, they are very similar actually.  Because our words should be our actions, which should be our beliefs too. 

 

To find you an official source, I pulled up the Official Mormon Bible Dictionary and looked up “Testament”, and it said:

 

“See Covenant.”

 

Ok, I clicked on the link…

 

“Covenant:

 

Sometimes denotes an agreement between persons (1 Sam. 23:18) or nations (1 Sam. 11:1); more often between God and man; but in this latter case it is important to notice that the two parties to the agreement do not stand in the relation of independent and equal contractors. God in His good pleasure fixes the terms, which man accepts. The same word is sometimes rendered “testament.” .... ”

Edited January 12, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

Possibly... I have never claimed to know anything about the Catholic mind-set...  But the OP is here asking for the LDS mind-set which I do know something about.   She can ask further questions if she needs them rather then limiting the people answering to only former Catholics

 

I am telling you - as one experienced in Catholic things - how what you guys say is confusing to a Catholic.  It doesn't matter much what the LDS mind-set is if the person asking the question will understand something completely different from what you just said.  She won't know to ask further questions.  All she's going to know is that the Book of Mormon is a Covenant DIFFERENT from the New and Everlasting Covenant because it is ANOTHER covenant.

 

And the New and Everlasting Covenant is the one that both Catholics AND LDS share the same understanding of.  AND it is wrong to say that the Book of Mormon is ANOTHER Covenant than that of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

 

But, hey, if you wanna disregard my opinion on a better communication path to these things, that's your prerogative.

[The Folk Prophet]

Doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Catholic/LDS thinking. Seems to me it's more about whether it's viewed as a separate and distinct covenant that replaces the Bible or whether it's viewed as an additional covenant that supplements and supports the Bible. The latter is the case and that's easily explained without understanding any mindset.

[estradling75]

I am telling you - as one experienced in Catholic things - how what you guys say is confusing to a Catholic.  It doesn't matter much what the LDS mind-set is if the person asking the question will understand something completely different from what you just said.  She won't know to ask further questions.  All she's going to know is that the Book of Mormon is a Covenant DIFFERENT from the New and Everlasting Covenant because it is ANOTHER covenant.

 

And the New and Everlasting Covenant is the one that both Catholics AND LDS share the same understanding of.  AND it is wrong to say that the Book of Mormon is ANOTHER Covenant than that of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

 

But, hey, if you wanna disregard my opinion on a better communication path to these things, that's your prerogative

 

So... she gets confused by our differences.  Then she works to understand why and clear that confusion... Which is her stated purpose of being here.  This forum is not going to be available to translate the differences she will have with the guy she is interested in when they discuss religion.  She needs to learn to do that herself so that she can bridge the gap.

[sxfritz]

The "Testament" part of the title was only added a relatively short time ago.  I know it was since I joined 30 years ago. 

 

There may be some writings from the time the tile was created, but I have only hear it used in context of "witness" and I have it used that way many,many times.

 

I warned you it was a diverse group with many opinions.  :)

[Guest]

This is what the Catholics understand as The Covenant which is the common understanding between Catholic and LDS:

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/New_and_Everlasting_Covenant

 

Each covenant under the New and Everlasting Covenant has, of course, differences - like the Covenant of Baptism has differences, the Covenant of Marriage has differences... at the very least in the sacrament but, like marriage, goes even more than that into the post-mortal implications that has been restored that is absent in Catholic teaching.

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Catholic/LDS thinking. Seems to me it's more about whether it's viewed as a separate and distinct covenant that replaces the Bible or whether it's viewed as an additional covenant that supplements and supports the Bible. The latter is the case and that's easily explained without understanding any mindset.

 

It is not a mindset, rather an understanding of terms used.  Revelation is another one of those.  The word Revelation has a specific connotation in the Roman Catholic Church which can become really confusing when a Catholic uses the word Revelation in a question directed at LDS folks who don't know the Catholic usage of the word.  Covenant, Testament, Sacrament... those have specific connotations that can make it difficult for a Catholic to understand what you're talking about.

 

It is always better when somebody is familiar with both Catholic and LDS "language" who can bridge the gap... but only if that somebody is listened to.

 

So, basically... when a Catholic uses the word Covenant - they usually refer to either Mosaic Law (which they generally refer to as Old Testament) or the New and Everlasting Covenant (which they generally refer to as New Testament).  Remember, in Catholicism, canon is closed... so there are no "newer" Covenants than the New Testament... but that's just fine... because any new Covenant the LDS makes (like Temple covenants) are part of the New and Everlasting Covenant... so it doesn't really change the big picture.

Edited January 12, 2015 by anatess

[Jane_Doe]

Guys we should focus back on Claire, not chasing our own tail.

[Guest]

So... she gets confused by our differences.  Then she works to understand why and clear that confusion... Which is her stated purpose of being here.  This forum is not going to be available to translate the differences she will have with the guy she is interested in when they discuss religion.  She needs to learn to do that herself so that she can bridge the gap.

 

Estradling, with due respect... I've been through this road before.  It took me more than 3 years to just to get how you guys use certain words... because I had NOBODY who guided me through it.  Missionaries couldn't help me.

 

Never mind... this is exhausting.  I'm talking to the wall.

[Claire]

I'm sorry if I started a bit of an argument here, that was not my intention. That being said, the original question was splitting hairs a bit, so I have to take at least some responsibility for the resulting hair splitting and debates. Sorry guys!

 

I get that the Book of Mormon is meant to be another witness to Jesus and the covenants established in the bible. I'm still a bit confused as whether it is simply a witness to those covenants or if it is also a sort of "supplemental" covenant, though I suspect that I should get a bit further into it before tackling that question. Hopefully it will answer itself! :)

 

Anyway, thanks to everybody for your insights. Again, I'm sorry if I caused any trouble

 

-Claire

[Jane_Doe]

I'm sorry if I started a bit of an argument here, that was not my intention. That being said, the original question was splitting hairs a bit, so I have to take at least some responsibility for the resulting hair splitting and debates. Sorry guys!

 

 

Heh, don't worry about it one bit.  We're passionate people and like to talk. No one here is angry or upset, so you have nothing to be sorry about.

 

I've actually really enjoyed your questions and looking at things from a new perspective.

 

 

I get that the Book of Mormon is meant to be another witness to Jesus and the covenants established in the bible. I'm still a bit confused as whether it is simply a witness to those covenants or if it is also a sort of "supplemental" covenant, though I suspect that I should get a bit further into it before tackling that question. Hopefully it will answer itself!  :)

 

 

The BoM is meant as an additional witness testifying of Christ, the same way the Gospel of John compliments the Gospel of Mark.  It provides additional insight on the same things to Bible does.  Sometimes the BoM says a principle really well, so we like to quote that verse a lot.  The promised, principles, and message is the same as the Bible.

 

The BoM does NOT "trump" the Bible.  Nothing is getting replaced.  There are no new promises or laws for us to make in the BoM which are not described in the Bible.  Note: this is not true of Doctrine and Convents, but that's a completely separate issue.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Claire]

 

The BoM does NOT "trump" the Bible.  Nothing is getting replaced.  There are no new promises or laws for us to make in the BoM which are not described in the Bible.  Note: this is not true of Doctrine and Convents, but that's a completely separate issue.

 

That actually brings about a good question (I think). If the Book of Mormon, at least in theory, teaches the same thing as the bible, would I be better served skipping it for now and starting with Doctrine and Covenants? Or will I not understand the Doctrine and Covenants without reading the Book of Mormon first? (Heavens knows that one section gave me trouble).

 

-Claire

[Just_A_Guy]

 

I guess what I'm asking then is if the Book of Mormon is claiming to be another witness to Christ, or is it about a covenant separate and apart from those established in the bible?

 

If I'm understanding the Catholic idea of "covenant" (as used in the context of the Old/New Testaments or old/new covenants) correctly (I'm looking here); I would answer as follows:

 

The Book of Mormon does not (for lack of a better word) fulfill/supplant the New Testament/Covenant the way the New Testament might be said to fulfill/supplant the Old Testament/Covenant.  Rather, the Book of Mormon can probably best be described as a restoration of truths and teachings that were part of the New Covenant, but that we believe were either omitted from or not clearly explained in the collection of books we call the New Testament.

 

That said:  you should also be aware that while Mormon teaching is aware of the usage of "testament" as a meaning for "covenant", Mormonism also teaches that the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was known to the ancient patriarchs and that the fundamentals of the Gospel as we understand it (faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring/living a consecrated life until the end) are the same now as they were in the days of Adam or Abraham.  We would reject, for instance, any idea that people who lived in Moses' day were saved by their own works whereas people who live now are saved by the grace of Christ--we would say that salvation always has and always will come through Christ's atonement.

 

 

That actually brings about a good question (I think). If the Book of Mormon, at least in theory, teaches the same thing as the bible, would I be better served skipping it for now and starting with Doctrine and Covenants? Or will I not understand the Doctrine and Covenants without reading the Book of Mormon first? (Heavens knows that one section gave me trouble).

 

Well, our detractors seem to think there's an awful lot in the Book of Mormon that's pretty unbiblical!    There are parts of the Book of Mormon that you may find pretty hard to square with conventional interpretations of the Bible, so I'd still start there.

 

One other thing to bear in mind:  The Book of Mormon is reasonably easy to understand as an independent text--it basically constructs its own literary universe and the storyline and doctrinal teachings within it largely proceed within that universe (in other words--you don't have to learn a lot of external history to contextualize and understand it).  By contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants is basically a series of revelations Joseph Smith (and a couple of his successors) claimed to have received in response to very specific questions and circumstances; and I think it's best tackled when one is using a number of reference materials to supplement one's reading (I'm a fan of Steven Harper's Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants.  The Church's college-aged-religious instruction program has a student manual here, but some of the materials are a bit dated and I don't think the manual's treatment of some aspects of church history is terribly thorough.  The Church's historical department has spent the last three years developing a series of online articles entitled "Revelations in Context", but their progress over the past year has been terribly slow.)

So, in short--If you're going to make a study of Mormon scriptural texts, I'd still suggest you start with the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy